Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

We may say that nature seems logical to us - mathematical even - but that doesn't mean nature uses logic or math to keep planets in orbit around their stars, for example.

[sigh]

This is not axiomatic for me but it is corollary to "reality exists" and if you don't understand this you probably can't understand the paradigm I am proposing. If you can't see reality in the terms and definitions I propose then you will continue to believe in Darwin despite the bad assumptions and the massive contradictory evidence.

Every three year old in the world weeps.

Young minds are being wired in new ways today that are in keeping with new knowledge. It will be much easier for them to see new patterns and new paradigms as old scientists die off. Despite a blind adherence to the status quo and inability of people to remodel their minds we will always live in a state of change because this is the nature of nature itself even for a species that has always known everything.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't believe anyone here is "demeaning science". Rather the faith based beliefs in science are being held up as being false and unsupported.

The words in quotes were not my words, but close enough for present purposes. My words were, "those who demean atheism or empiricism (scientism, they scoffingly call it)"

What faith-based belief in science? Science works, and that's evidence that it's correct whenever it does. You keep "demeaning" Darwin's science, but never even try to demonstrate where it is in error. Claiming it is has has been sufficient for you. Saying it fails without producing its failures is simply not persuasive.

"Atheism" as the belief there is no God is just another belief system.

That's an inadequate definition. It excludes the majority of atheists, who are agnostic about gods, that is, they don't claim that gods don't exist, just that they don't have a good enough reason to believe that they do.

Those who think you can live your life according to science are not only missing the big picture but they believe they are the only ones looking.

Who thinks that? Not I. I hardly think about science in daily life, and rarely consult scientific theory or law before making any decisions.

Very little animal behavior is driven by instinct. They act as they do because that is way life acts when it doesn't perceive reality in terms of beliefs.

Inborn behavior like walking is called instinct. Acquired behaviors such as tying shoes are learned.

This could be parsed to mean only those trained in linguistics need bother to try to communicate.

I wrote, "Individual words have fuzzy meanings, but strung together by a competent linguist, they can become increasingly specific and their fuzziness approach zero to an alert (not fuzzy-headed), competent reader or listener." I doubt anybody but you read that meaning into those words. Do you think I believe that only those trained in linguistics need bother to try to communicate? Is there another way to understand that that a person like me might have meant instead?

"reality exists" and if you don't understand this you probably can't understand the paradigm I am proposing.

Yes, I understand that reality exists. It's a tautological comment, reality being the collection of objects and processes that exist in space and time and interact with one another, and yes again that I don't understand what much of you write means to you. For example, I don't know what you think instinct is if you think, "Very little animal behavior is driven by instinct." I don't know why you think Darwin was wrong or just how - something about speciation, bottlenecks, and instinct being, "just another of Darwin's false assumptions."

 

[cladking]

I wrote, "Individual words have fuzzy meanings, but strung together by a competent linguist, they can become increasingly specific and their fuzziness approach zero to an alert (not fuzzy-headed), competent reader or listener." I doubt anybody but you read that meaning into those words. Do you think I believe that only those trained in linguistics need bother to try to communicate? Is there another way to understand that that a person like me might have meant instead?

Every single time fuzziness approaches zero it means both the speaker and listener already agree. It doesn't matter how little fuzziness exists anyway since the speaker might not have said quite what he meant, the listener heard something else anyway, and any difference between intended meaning and interpretation will go unnoticed.

I've said before I've heard two people having two distinct conversations. Language can not fail more than this.

But, yes, when two people share the exact same beliefs communication is better.

...So?

Communication is needed most where beliefs are most different.

 

[cladking]

That's an inadequate definition. It excludes the majority of atheists, who are agnostic about gods, that is, they don't claim that gods don't exist, just that they don't have a good enough reason to believe that they do.

Beliefs are superstition. If you believe in Peers or the omniscience of science, or that there is no God these are all superstitions.

If you believe in the efficacy and importance of science or that there must be a God for all the wonders of nature to exist then these can be considered rational. Everyone has to believe in something and I believe reality exists as it is perceived by people who always make sense. I don't believe in anything else other than indicated axioms and corollaries. Obviously I believe science and reason are the only tools we have albeit puny ones at that. I believe people should pay more attention to and build on Kuhn's work because science, or least science education, has entirely lost its way. We are in danger of extinction because of our omniscience.

What faith-based belief in science?

I've watched believers repeat endlessly that nothing in science is proven and then treat Darwin as gospel and beyond reproach or amendment. Nothing is proven except there is no god and species change gradually because of fitness.

Inborn behavior like walking is called instinct. Acquired behaviors such as tying shoes are learned.

I've taught many kids to walk and birds to fly. Consciousness, life, free will are all the exact same thing seen from different perspectives. If everything really were instinct Darwin would almost be half right. The problem for Darwin is that free will is what keeps individuals alive.

I got up five minutes early this morning and saw a fox trot right by my window. He probably knew I was early but will try to time his rounds differently anyway.

 

[cladking]

Who thinks that? Not I. I hardly think about science in daily life, and rarely consult scientific theory or law before making any decisions.

I can't do anything without thinking about science, experiment, and hypotheses. I'm always on the look out for anomalies and rarely disappointed.

...later

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Instinct is not an assumption of Darwin or the theory of evolution at all.

Good grief!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Search of the scientific literature using the following terms:

Darwin 1,840,000 results (0.12 sec)
Biological evolution 6,360,000 results (0.06 sec)
Theory of evolution 5,040,000 results (0.09 sec)
Biological fitness 4,720,000 results (0.10 sec)
Natural selection 7,600,000 results (0.08 sec)
Homo sapiens 699,000 results (0.04 sec)

Ancient Language 0 results
Ancient Science 0 results
homo omniscience 0 results

 

[John53]

Instinct is not an assumption of Darwin or the theory of evolution at all.

Good grief!

I'm fascinated with instinct especially with some species of migratory waders. I'd always assumed the young birds followed the older birds until I found out the parents leave the breeding areas before the young. How something can make a trip from breeding grounds in the Arctic to Australia is wondrous enough but that the first trip is done with no knowledge or training is almost beyond belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Every single time fuzziness approaches zero it means both the speaker and listener already agree.

Disagree. It means there has been effective communication.

I've heard two people having two distinct conversations. Language can not fail more than this.

I assume that you mean in a language common to them. If so, that's not a failure of language. That would be a failure of another nature, such as people not paying attention to one another. We see such failures commonly here on RF.

Often, when I write that I don't hold a god belief, it is understood and repeated as if I said gods don't exist. That's not a failure of language. That's a cognitive defect on the part of the reader.

Often, I ask questions of others that aren't answered. That's also not a failure of language.

Often, I offer refutations of claims that aren't addressed or acknowledged and are repeated unchanged later, which impedes communication and mutual understanding. That's also not a problem of language. These are all habits of thought that impede communication and aren't defects in language.

Beliefs are superstition. If you believe in Peers or the omniscience of science, or that there is no God these are all superstitions.

You just expressed a belief. How shall I view it? Superstition?

If you believe in the efficacy and importance of science or that there must be a God for all the wonders of nature to exist then these can be considered rational.

Those two couldn't be more different. Only belief based in evidence properly evaluated is rational, because only it depends on reason. One word (rational) derives from the Latin for the other (ratio=reason in Latin). The latter, the god belief, is faith-based, not reason-based, and thus is irrational (the privative prefix "ir-" means without), but if the word offends (it is meant as descriptive, not judgmental), make it nonrational or unrational:

 

[cladking]

Disagree. It means there has been effective communication.

So if you have a few of these "effective communicators" your contention is you could pass down ideas from one to the next without change in the message. "Chinese telephone" isn't caused by misunderstanding but by human error and bad communication.

I'd love to see that.

Suffice to say my theory holds that writing was invented because this was impossible.

That would be a failure of another nature, such as people not paying attention to one another. We see such failures commonly here on RF.

Indeed!!! And where do we see it most prominently? It's where there is disagreement and unshared beliefs.

Even though our root beliefs are similar there is still a breakdown in communication typically because I have no beliefs in Evolution.

You just expressed a belief. How shall I view it? Superstition?

I believe all beliefs are superstition. I believe that our species, homo circularis rationatio, operates on belief because we use an abstract, symbolic, and analog language which can't reflect digital reality which is not by definition abstract and is not symbolic. We by definition adopt beliefs and then reason circularly toward them. Inductive logic is a mirage. It can not exist and is based on language and semantic.

I'm sorry reality is so complex but I'm not the one who invented it. I'm am reporting what I see based on the axiom that reality exists and two distinct metaphysics. It's not my contention we can't study reality merely that the world is based on erroneous 19th century assumptions, definitions, and inductive reasoning.

 

[cladking]

Search of the scientific literature using the following terms:

Darwin 1,840,000 results (0.12 sec)
Biological evolution 6,360,000 results (0.06 sec)
Theory of evolution 5,040,000 results (0.09 sec)
Biological fitness 4,720,000 results (0.10 sec)
Natural selection 7,600,000 results (0.08 sec)
Homo sapiens 699,000 results (0.04 sec)

Ancient Language 0 results
Ancient Science 0 results
homo omniscience 0 results

Maybe if the new AI that runs search engines the last few months had taken a nanosecond longer it would have found all the uses of these words in this very thread.

History and reality are being rewritten to enshrine the status quo. The lousy worthless program won't even report the words it does find and many or most hits won't even contain the word you search. Every incarnation is worse and worse.

We are doomed.

 

[cladking]

Those two couldn't be more different.

No. This is scientism. While I agree science is more practical it is reductionistic in nature and there's no evidence that nature can be reduced and then its nature extrapolated from this. "Reason" merely requires that our beliefs don't deviate from logic and experiment. It does not require we postulate that no God and no ignorance exist. Indeed, reason demands we stick to what we know without the hubris that we are omniscient.

 

[cladking]

I'm fascinated with instinct especially with some species of migratory waders. I'd always assumed the young birds followed the older birds until I found out the parents leave the breeding areas before the young. How something can make a trip from breeding grounds in the Arctic to Australia is wondrous enough but that the first trip is done with no knowledge or training is almost beyond belief.

Nature is fascinating.

But no matter how complex a behavior wired into a conscious individual a member of his species had to invent that behavior. Nature can't just hand down because there is no evidence it is conscious. Magical beliefs are almost impossible to avoid in our species. And once they are acquired they usually last a lifetime. No bee believes in science or God. None of their behavior or nature was necessarily handed down from on high.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So if you have a few of these "effective communicators" your contention is you could pass down ideas from one to the next without change in the message.

No. My contention is that the more precise people are with language on both ends, the greater the fidelity in the transmission of ideas from one mind to another. This sentence you just read contains a clearly articulated idea that many readers will understand exactly as I intended it, and many will have trouble doing that.

Even though our root beliefs are similar there is still a breakdown in communication typically because I have no beliefs in Evolution.

Our problem is not related to your beliefs in evolution, but rather, with how you articulate them. Your language is fuzzy.

I believe all beliefs are superstition.

There's a good example. Whatever could that mean to you? Could you mean it as it reads? If so, why do you trust any of your own beliefs? If not, then what does it mean? I don't expect to ever know, because I don't expect you to be able to articulate clear thoughts clearly. I've tried to help you do that, but to no avail. I still don't know what many words mean to you when you use them, or why you believe the things you write.

It's not my contention we can't study reality merely that the world is based on erroneous 19th century assumptions, definitions, and inductive reasoning.

Yes, I know. That's your claim. Now where is the evidenced supporting argument?

No. This is scientism.

Then falsfy it if you think it's wrong. These dismissals out of hand aren't arguments.

"Reason" merely requires that our beliefs don't deviate from logic and experiment. It does require we postulate that no God and no ignorance exist.

OK, but why tell me? Do you think that was my claim? If so, this is an example of an ideas transforming in the trip from my head to yours. How about as an exercise you trying to paraphrase my argument about why one belief was rational but not the other. If you can't do that satisfactorily, would you agree that that represents a failure of my idea to launch from me to you?

 

[gnostic]

Beliefs are superstition. If you believe in Peers or the omniscience of science, or that there is no God these are all superstitions.

That’s a misuse of superstition.

For one, no one is claiming that science being “omniscience“…except you. Only you are making such a claim, but blame other for having such beliefs, hence is just you attacking the straw-man.

Plus. You have this conspiracy theory in regards to Peer Review, as if those peers hold enormous powers. Your paranoia are noted by everyone who have encountered you. For instance, you seem to think that every scientists (eg physicists, biologists, astronomers, etc) are all Egyptologists. You have particular hatred for Egyptologists, and anyone who disagree with you on the subjects completely unrelated to Egypt (eg theory of Evolution), you would accuse them of being “pro-Egyptology” or “ramp-sympathisers“. That’s irrational behaviour, and it is irritating when you change the subject to ancient Egypt or the bloody ramps.

For another, superstition is irrational beliefs in the supernatural, like angels or gods moving the sun in a chariot, or spirits or gods controlling the wind or rain, or that gods or spirits personification of nature, eg the sun, moon, mountains, rivers, sea, tree, etc. Or the irrational beliefs in good luck or bad luck/omen.

There are no such beliefs in the mechanisms of Evolution. There are no supernatural entities (eg spirits or gods) involving supernatural events. All mechanisms of changes to populations over time, can be explained as natural processes, eg selective pressures when the environment have changed in that regions, the mechanisms involving mutations or to the changes to the frequency to existing gene variations (Genetic Drift), etc, underlying all these mechanisms, is understanding the processes of genetics, RNA & DNA.

it doesn’t help that you don’t understand Evolution. You have your own weird version of what Evolution should be, that sounds more it was based on sci-fi or on comic books.

Anyway, if you think any belief is superstition, then what if your beliefs in the 40,000 years old “Ancient Science“ & “Ancient Language”, or your uses of the Bible’s Nephilim and the Tower of Babel In the fantasy that you have built.

 

[cladking]

Instinct is not an assumption of Darwin or the theory of evolution at all.

Good grief!

Darwin certainly believed in instinct and an entire chapter of the Book is dedicated to it.

 

[cladking]

No. My contention is that the more precise people are with language on both ends, the greater the fidelity in the transmission of ideas from one mind to another. This sentence you just read contains a clearly articulated idea that many readers will understand exactly as I intended it, and many will have trouble doing that.

And my experience is that much communication is merely assumed. No matter how logically, grammatically, or well articulated an utterance every listener hears something different. Each will tend to hear something that agrees with his beliefs even if that belief is that the speaker speaks only gobbledty gook.

I speak literally and in tautologies but few people have even noticed that. They parse my words to mean something else and to imply I'm the one with too much hubris. That I use metaphor and play word games. I say "all observed change in species is sudden" and they accuse me of not knowing what a fossil is or being ignorant of two centuries of science.

 

[cladking]

If so, why do you trust any of your own beliefs?

I "trust" none of my own beliefs and am well aware everything I believe is founded on the premise that "reality exists". If the premise is wrong then I'm probably wrong or right only in a left handed way about everything. But I'm betting reality does exist and there are not an infinite number of pyramids built by an infinite number of ramps as science has determined. I'm betting the Charles Darwin could not have been more wrong and change in species is sudden exactly as we observe.

I'm telling you what I have determined based only on "reality exists". All experiment and observation appear to support my "conclusions".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm fascinated with instinct especially with some species of migratory waders. I'd always assumed the young birds followed the older birds until I found out the parents leave the breeding areas before the young. How something can make a trip from breeding grounds in the Arctic to Australia is wondrous enough but that the first trip is done with no knowledge or training is almost beyond belief.

I'm fascinated too. There seems to be a lot of work on it involving avian migration behavior. I recall reading about experiments in a migratory bird species that had different populations that flew different routes out of Africa when migrating to different parts of Europe. If you swapped fertile eggs between populations, the resulting offspring would migrate as usual, but would use the instinctual route map and end up in the wrong locations. Their migratory pattern was the same as the population the eggs came from, but with the wrong starting point.

There is a lot that remains to be studied and one of those subjects that I've been interested in, but had little time to pursue.

How does this behavior evolve and how does it spread and persist without being taught?

It is a fascinating subject.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I speak literally and in tautologies but few people have even noticed that. They parse my words to mean something else and to imply I'm the one with too much hubris. That I use metaphor and play word games. I say "all observed change in species is sudden" and they accuse me of not knowing what a fossil is or being ignorant of two centuries of science.

You know that, but apparently are OK with it. I've discussed how you can change that with you, but you've never responded to those comments, so I can only assume that either you are content with how things are or, if not, that you believe you can change them by continuing on as before. What you describe will never change until you do. I've said that to you a couple of times, but you don't seem interested in discussing it whether to agree or to disagree for whatever your reasons.

Why do you make that choice? I don't know. I can't see any benefit in it for you, or risk in exploring whether those words might have merit. But that's not you. What we see instead is.

I "trust" none of my own beliefs

OK. I trust mine, and for good reason. They've been confirmed to be correct empirically by virtue of their ability to predict outcomes successfully. If you can't say the same for your beliefs, then you are correct to not rely on them being accurate or useful. You still haven't solved the problem you complain about most - being misunderstood. Whatever your approach to solving it isn't working, so you are correct to recognize that it's not a trustworthy method and to not trust it, but you also don't seem to have much interest in finding a better idea, either - one that works for you.